Comments • 352

So she met up with him late night at a Hotel to "give him a book", then claims she was sexually assaulted but never reported it to police, but somehow found the courage to sue him for millions 3 years later. AND won't name a date or the place where it happened? This is a bullshit cash grab.

I don’t mean to be rude about your idea of facing the same charges I don’t agree with because the person who claims this still could have been assaulted it is just there is not enough evidence to prove him guilty

If you're going to just file civil charges for a sexual harassment instead of criminal charges, you know they're most likely after the money. I don't know why you wouldn't file criminal charges in these cases.

Drummonds push was intentional = Flagarent 2Embid did a normal basketball move with a bad outcome = Flagarent 1just because the action is more physicly painful for the player does not translate into flagarent 1 or 2 calls

I'm with you SDC but one problem. If sexual assault victims know that they face heavy consequences for coming forward, they will be far too afraid that sufficient evidence will not be found. A policy like that would be a giant roadblock in between victims and the justice they deserve.

Ok. SDC, unfortunately, this the old Black man speech, that no young Black man want to hear! lol

Because a case is dismissed and the charges are dropped does NOT mean that this NBA players / coaches are innocent or they are not true, It could mean that they have a serious investment in the accused and money talks is the short version. They are called high priced attorney for a reason.

I watched a lot of games coached by Kokoskov, and it was clearly a major split between when his sets worked and when they didn’t. He ran dribble drive nearly every play yet it rarely resulted in enough buckets to win a game. He clearly was not made to coach in the NBA, and he wasn’t doing justice to players like TJ Warren and Deandre Ayton, who both should have had even better seasons with other coaches. Overall, he was too easy to gameplan against, and they are just lucky that players put up big performances so that he actually had any wins this season.

Why wait till now to say something? Could have said it when he was with the warriors, what about when he was with the lakers another opportunity, but now that he’s a kings coach and has actual money you call him out okay man. this is why some guys can’t trust some of these girls.

OK im a sixers fan and the Emiid elbow I can understand if that was ruled a flagrant 2. The foul in game 4 on the other hand was in no way flagrant. He got ball and arm while going for the ball. He did not go for Allen's face or neck so calling that a flagrant 2 is kinda weak.

So… right out the gate, I feel like this needs to be established. Someone being found not guilty of sexual assault is not the same as them not having done it. It simply means it could not be proven beyond a reasonable doubt. Which, in most cases, especially when the defendant is rich, this is the result. Since in most cases, it is one person’s word versus another, and that does not tend to carry a lot of weight unless you have a Cosby level of accusers. Now with this established, let us look at why we should never look to seek jail time for someone who has accused someone of sexual assault and then the defendant was found not guilty. The main problem with this is that it puts an unreasonably high barrier for sexual assault survivors to come forward. Imagine you had been assaulted and are working up the courage to come forward. You are now faced with the question, “how sure are you that you can prove it.” Since, if you cannot prove it, and your attacker is found not guilty, then you go to jail. In other words, it creates a system that would either put survivors of sexual assault in jail, encourage survivors to never come forward or both. Which I hope none of these are outcomes any of us would really want.

Most people in this thread are overlooking this very obvious and serious point. Proving assault "beyond a reasonable doubt" can be very difficult unless you were fortunate enough to get it on video/audio recording. It boils down to he said/she said and a jury won't likely convict on that alone. If two people are in a room by themselves and one person assaults the other, unless there's physical evidence (like bruises, blood, bodily fluids, etc.) it's near impossible sometimes to know exactly what happened. Woman are often scared to come forward as it is because they fear how they will be treated publicly (just browse these comments and you'll understand) so they often stay quiet and just try to ignore it happened. Add to that the fact that wealthy people are infinitely more likely to get away with crimes in general and you can see how difficult it can be.I'm certainly not one to just assume that all accusations are true, since we know for a fact that they aren't, but I also don't assume that just because they don't come forward right away means that they're lying. These types of situations are far more complicated than that.